My brother first got me into David Lynch, though I have only seen Blue Velvet, Lost Highway and parts of the Twin Peaks series. I think if there is anyone who understands his movies, they are either lying and full of shit, or had something to do with making it with him. At any rate, Lost Highway is confusing and totally creepy, but very different and interesting. I did not like it the first time I saw it, but watched it a couple years ago and enjoyed it alot, even though I didn't know what the fuck was going on.

Blue Velvet is fucking awesome. This movie was so different and fucked up from anythintg I had seen when I first watched it, it blew mw away. Everytime I watch it I like it even more, but I try to spread my viewings apart so I can forget things about it and parts of it's uniqueness. I think is what also appeals to me about Lost Highway. And I think this is what attarcts people to his movies, they are so wierd and far out there. I think he knows what he's doing and is breaking molds because most everything has been done. He might be a little pretentious, but maybe he's just as fucking insane as his movies.

It took me MANY sessions to get through that movie.  I don't particularly like it.  I guess I have to be in the mood.  Another thing is that I really don't like black and white movies other than Laurel & Hardy stuff. 

I liked how some scenes created moods, but there really wasn't anything about the movie that grabbed me.

I tried to enjoy Inland Empire but that also took me many sessions to complete it.  I don't think I liked a single thing about it.  Actually, there were a few times I wanted to punch the actress in the face, ha ha.  Very annoying.

The thing that I noticed in a lot of David Lynch movies is the abundance of corny dialogue.  If an unknown directors used that, you can be sure he/she would be mericilessly insulted by critics.  I appreciate some of his work, and I like how he ignores some sensibilities or rules.  But I don't think that he is a genius and I don't think that he's especially brilliant.  He's different, but sometimes too "consciously" different.  I'm more into people who are different because that's really what they are - it's not something that they "try" to be.

I didn't fast-forward through Eraserhead - it just took me several attempts to watch the whole thing.  A lot of the time I was thinking to myself that I was too uneducated to understand what I was seeing.  So I was trying really hard to find something that I could grasp.   But the things that I was able to discern were attempts at setting a mood - I'm not sure if that was the intention of Lynch. 

From what I can remember, Lynch doesn't really explain his movies.  I rather like that.  I never investigated further.  Why?  Because I don't want to make a viewer feel the way that I felt when I watched Eraserhead.

I was told that Lynch is an artist and that every shot is supposed to be like a painting.  For some reason I swallowed that statement whole.  Later on I saw the source (sort of an "extra" on a DVD) and I have to remind myself to punch that asshole in the face (the guy who made that statement as if it were his own).  First of all, Lynch is not what I call an "artist."  When he lets ants crawl onto his painting, die on the painting, and remain on the painting, that's just someone fucking around.  I foolishly took some painting classes in college and had to suffer under the teachings of a total twat.  She hardly paid any attention to the students, preferring instead to splatter paint on a huge canvas and then spend 10 minutes admiring the random splotches, appearing very much to just be begging for attention instread of really creating something.  I confronted her one day and I told her that I really would appreciate learning how to paint what I see - even something as simple as an apple.  She rather snobbishly told me that the skills I was seeking were not "art" - they were "illustration."  She said "anybody can paint an object."  I asked her if she ever painted an object- I really wanted to see her paint something other than total crap.  Because of that showdown I quit the class. Yeah right - that's not art.  That's why DaVinci  made perfect sketches of the human form. He wasn't an artist.  he was an illustrator.  (that was sarcasm).  Anyway, the only paintings I ever saw that were the handiwork of Lynch were splotches.  Now getting back to the point of "every shot is like a painting" - fuck you.  A painting has composition.  So does a shot in a movie.  Lynch is using actors, not random paint splotches and not ants (well, maybe ants in Blue Velvet).  In a painting, the composition is about objects.  Movies have another dimension - movement.  So when someone moves, that movement can be considered a kind of object if you imagine an exaggerated blur between start and stop.  Splotches on a canvas can't translate into ability to compose a shot.  Fuck you.

The people I know who love Lynch give me the impression that they love his movies because they get bragging rights.  It's prestigious to love and (pretend to ) understand.  But what I do like about Lynch as a person is that he only took one formal class in film, if his biography can be believed.  I love some of the moods, like the creepiness of LOST HIGHWAY, but I really hate the ultra gay pretentious dialogue (that would be called "corny" if any beginning director used drivel like that) in some of his movies.  I think what burns me is the prentiousness, or the appearance of pretentiousness.  I feel that some of the material is contrived almost as a private joke against the world, and part of me feels that Lynch laughs when he reads reviews that exalt him.  I see the word "genius" being used a lot.  Maybe "charlatan" would be a better choice.

well, sorry for the rant.  I am, believe it or not, a fan of Lynch.  But I am not a bind fan.